Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Reposted by Ed Darrell

Raymond Ackerman

@raymondackerman.bsky.social

I recently found out he'd said the 1972 ban on DDT ended polio outbreaks, not the 1950s vaccines. It's dangerous to have this man in the position he's in.

September 6, 2025 at 12:44 PM

Reposted by Ed Darrell

Letsfixit

@emerald27.bsky.social

Facts matter. The rapid drop in polio cases was due to the Jonas Salk vaccine, definitely not from the banning of DDT.
RFK Jr. must be removed from office. #SaveHHS #SavePublicHealth #SaveAmerica

Carolyn Barber, MD @cbarbermd.bsky.social · Sep 5

RFK Jr. says polio ended because of the DDT ban. Wrong.
📉 Cases crashed after the 1955 Salk vaccine.
💊 Sabin oral vaccine in 1961 finished the job.
🚫 DDT ban came in 1972—long after polio was gone.

Vaccines beat polio.
#BlueSky #MedSky #NewsSky
#SciSky 🧪 #NurseSky #IDSky #EMSky #PedsSky #ObSky

September 7, 2025 at 3:05 AM

Reposted by Ed Darrell

Astonishment

@astonishment.bsky.social

Claiming Polio was caused by DDT when the polio virus was discovered and diagnosable before the invention of DDT really goes to show that Spotify is subsidizing misinformation through the Rogan podcast on a level that should inspire an international boycott of their platform.

September 7, 2025 at 8:05 PM

Reposted by Ed Darrell

Bob Magee

@bobmagee940.bsky.social

Since DDT wasn't sprayed until 1939 for insect control, maybe Mr. Brain Worms can explain where polio came from before then? Or where FDR got polio in 1921?

September 10, 2025 at 12:47 AM

Reposted by Ed Darrell

Mel H

@missy-atx.bsky.social

Me. I have been vaxxed since the Salk polio vax days. We were one of the first families in our hometown to line up for the Salk vaccine. I’m 76 yoa, grew up under coal dust darkened skies, chemically polluted creeks,
and DDT filled planes and trucks that dusted our little bodies. A vax is nothin’

September 20, 2025 at 6:13 PM

Reposted by Ed Darrell

Ed Darrell

@edarrell.bsky.social

Trump is undecided how to deal with Venezuela. He can’t decide whether to follow the US model in Vietnam, or the model of Russia in Afghanistan, or Russia in Ukraine.

Patrick Monahan @pattymo.com · 11d

Ah man Cheney would have loved this dumb bullshit. Sad

NYT alert:

Breaking News
President Trump, undecided on how to deal with Venezuela, is weighing military options, including ousting Nicolás Maduro.

November 4, 2025 at 7:11 PM

Ed Darrell

@edarrell.bsky.social

open.substack.com/pub/iholdthe...

“For I was hungry and you ended my SNAP benefits…”

A modern cry from Matthew 25:35-27

open.substack.com

November 11, 2025 at 1:49 AM

Reposted by Ed Darrell

The Tennessee Holler

@thetnholler.bsky.social

Translation: he has no idea how insurance works

November 10, 2025 at 11:19 PM

Reposted by Ed Darrell

Marc Elias

@marcelias.bsky.social

🚨BREAKING: On behalf of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee my law firm has filed to intervene to defend the new California congressional map from attack. www.democracydocket.com/cases/califo...

🚨 Tangipa et al v. Newsom et al

Learn more here.

www.democracydocket.com

November 10, 2025 at 11:04 PM

Reposted by Ed Darrell

Tennessee Brando

@tnbrando.bsky.social

File this under “we all saw it coming,” Mike Johnson says he won’t commit to a vote on healthcare subsidies.

November 10, 2025 at 11:56 PM

Reposted by Ed Darrell

emptywheel

@emptywheel.bsky.social

This is super low key rebuttal of govt case, focusing solely on comms after Richman left FBI. There's reason for that: bc Comey shared classified details of SVR in January 2017.

The government’s silence is particularly striking because, despite its extended (ECF No.
138 at 4-11, 14-15) description of events that purportedly form the basis for the indictment here,
it does not attempt to explain how its narrative supports its theories. On the contrary, the
narrative undercuts its case. For instance, while Count One of the indictment alleges that Mr.
Comey authorized Mr. Richman to serve as an “anonymous source” about the “Clinton
investigation” while he was “at the FBI,” ECF No. 1 at 1, most of the communications the
government cites occurred long after Mr. Richman left the FBI in February 2017—and none
provides support for Mr. Richman being a source of information (as opposed to an explainer of
public facts) and none so much as mentions Mr. Richman being anonymous. ECF No. 138-6. It
is therefore unsurprising that every career prosecutor to touch this case reportedly declined
charges. The government’s own narrative thus provides further evidence that this case would never have been charged but for the President’s animus.
256 (2006); see also Vullo, 602 U.S. at 189. Accordingly, a defendant may raise a vindictive
prosecution claim when a prosecution was brought to “deter[] [the defendant’s] exercise of his
First Amendment rights.” Bragan v. Poindexter, 249 F.3d 476, 483 (6th Cir. 2001).
10

November 10, 2025 at 11:54 PM

Reposted by Ed Darrell

emptywheel

@emptywheel.bsky.social

This passage, arguing that 1A can be a basis for vindictive prosecution, is super important.

6. Finally, the government’s suggestion (ECF No. 138 at 24-25) that a vindictiveprosecution argument cannot be based on the exercise of First Amendment rights lacks support
in precedent or principle. A prosecution brought to “punish[]” an individual “for exercising a
protected statutory or constitutional right” is “a due process violation ‘of the most basic sort.’”
United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 372 (1982). Nothing in that rule suggests that certain
constitutional rights are less worthy of protection than others. On the contrary, the Supreme Court has made clear that “government officials” may not “subject[] an individual to retaliatory
actions, including criminal prosecutions, for speaking out.” Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250,
256 (2006); see also Vullo, 602 U.S. at 189. Accordingly, a defendant may raise a vindictive
prosecution claim when a prosecution was brought to “deter[] [the defendant’s] exercise of his
First Amendment rights.” Bragan v. Poindexter, 249 F.3d 476, 483 (6th Cir. 2001).
10

November 10, 2025 at 11:44 PM

Reposted by Ed Darrell

emptywheel

@emptywheel.bsky.social

Super low key, Comey lays out the evidence that Trump had no cause to claim that Comey leaked classified info (which claim prosecutors parrotted).

7 No evidence supported the President’s assertion that Mr. Comey leaked classified information,
and the President’s indifference to facts further confirms that his accusations reflected animus,
not “legitimate prosecutorial motive.” See ECF No. 55 at 4-6 (explaining that “there was no
‘leaking’” of classified information to the press by either Mr. Comey or his counsel” as was
confirmed in the August 2019 Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General Report). The FBI
and DOJ Arctic Haze investigation similarly found no basis for charging Mr. Comey for “false
statements or with the substantive offenses under investigation.” Arctic Haze Memo at -065.

November 10, 2025 at 11:40 PM

Reposted by Ed Darrell

emptywheel

@emptywheel.bsky.social

Even worse!!!
Cause to parrot Russian disinformation!!!

To begin, the tweet does not reflect the President’s opinion about Mr. Comey, nor does it
refer to Mr. Comey’s May 3 testimony as the government misleadingly implies. Instead, the
tweet quotes a report based on a conversation on Fox and Friends describing a letter written by
former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page stating Page’s view of Mr. Comey’s March 20,
2017 testimony about links between the Trump campaign and the Russia government.5
This
tweet can hardly qualify as expressing the President’s legitimate prosecutorial motive—as
opposed to relaying hearsay from a television program with no factual basis. In fact, it is the
type of unfounded accusation that displays animus rather than a genuine interest in justice. And
despite the government’s reliance on it as preceding Mr. Comey’s public statements, the tweet
came after the news broke about Mr. Comey’s imminent testimony, i.e., after the President knew that Mr. Comey intended to exercise his First Amendment rights to speak publicly about Mr.
Trump’s conduct in office. The President’s preemptive effort to discredit Mr. Comey reflects his
animus triggered by Mr. Comey’s anticipated protected speech.

5 The tweet (issued in two parts) says: “So now it is reported that the Democrats who have
excoriated Carter Page about Russia, don’t want him to testify. He blows away their....” “...case
against him & now wants to clear his name by showing ‘the false or misleading testimony by
James Comey, John Brennan...’ Witch Hunt!” Appendix at 1. The tweet was issued thirty
minutes after Fox and Friends broke the same story. Id. And Mr. Comey had testified publicly
before the House Intelligence Committee on March 20, 2017, to confirm the Trump-campaign
and Russian-interference investigation. See Mueller Report, supra n.4 at 52-53.

November 10, 2025 at 11:31 PM

Reposted by Ed Darrell

emptywheel

@emptywheel.bsky.social

Oh nooooooooooo!!!

Donny!!!

You've given Comey cause to introduce the Mueller Report!!!!

4 See Robert S. Mueller, III, Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016
Presidential Election Vol. II, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, at 27-28, 33-36, 38-41, 57-60 (Mar. 2019)
(“Mueller Report”) (recounting Mr. Comey’s mounting concern about the impropriety of the
President’s actions), https://perma.cc/W3DH-PLS3. The President’s concerns were well
founded: Mr. Comey’s June 8, 2017 testimony provided many details about his troubling
interactions with the President. Open Hearing with Former FBI Director James Comey Before
the S. Comm. on Intelligence, 115th Cong., 1st. Sess. (June 8, 2017) (“Intel Hearing”),
https://perma.cc/UG4P-K2ZJ.

November 10, 2025 at 11:28 PM

Reposted by Ed Darrell

emptywheel

@emptywheel.bsky.social

Again, Comey citing Abrego.

Not only does President Trump have the ultimate power to cause a prosecution, but the
sequence of events that led to Mr. Comey’s prosecution leaves no doubt that he exercised that
power here. After forcing out the incumbent United States Attorney, Erik Siebert, because of his
reticence to bring this and other cases against the President’s perceived political enemies, the
President posted on social media a message to the Attorney General excoriating her for failing to
prosecute those enemies—including Mr. Comey—and directing that “JUSTICE MUST BE
SERVED NOW.” See id. at 10-11. In the same message, he praised Ms. Halligan’s legal ability,

and, within 48 hours, Ms. Halligan was appointed and four days later went to the grand jury to
indict Mr. Comey. See id. at 11-12. One does not need to connect these dots: they form an
unmistakable arrow from the President’s bow to Mr. Comey as the target. If “[t]he motivations
of the people who place the file on the prosecutor’s desk are highly relevant when considering a
motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution,” Abrego, 2025 WL 3002840, at *1 (emphasis
added), the motivations of the President who installed the prosecutor as U.S. Attorney after
publicly calling for Mr. Comey’s prosecution are compelling proof of his role in engineering the
indictment. The basis for imputation here is clear.1

November 10, 2025 at 11:23 PM

Reposted by Ed Darrell

emptywheel

@emptywheel.bsky.social

The former FBI Director, Jim Comey, cites the case of an undocumented immigrant, Kilmar Abrego, in his vindictive prosecution arg.

There's an important commonality between these cases.

indictments. United States v. Dickerson, 975 F.2d 1245, 1251 (7th Cir. 1992) (declining to
impute alleged animus of FBI agents and state police officers); see United States v. Spears, 159
F.3d 1081, 1087 (7th Cir. 1998) (declining to impute alleged animus of a state prosecutor and
investigators from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms); United States v. Gilbert, 266
F.3d 1180, 1187 (9th Cir. 2001) (declining to impute alleged animus of IRS investigators);
United States v. Cooper, 617 F. App’x 249, 251 (4th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (declining to impute
alleged animus of local law enforcement). Those cases are readily distinguishable from this one,
where the animus springs from the head of the Executive Branch who has supervisory authority
over all federal prosecutors and who exercised that power in this case. people who place the file on the prosecutor’s desk are highly relevant when considering a motion
to dismiss for vindictive prosecution.” United States v. Abrego, No. 25-cr-00115, 2025 WL
3002840, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 27, 2025) (citing Adams, 870 F.2d at 1146). And the
government itself acknowledges that when an individual harboring animus “displace[s]” the
prosecutor as “‘the ultimate decision-maker’” in bringing a prosecution, that individual’s animus
can be imputed to the prosecutor. See ECF No. 138 at 20 (citing United States v. Gomez-Lopez,
62 F.3d 304, 306 (9th Cir. 1995)).

November 10, 2025 at 11:21 PM

Reposted by Ed Darrell

emptywheel

@emptywheel.bsky.social

Onto Comey's vindictive and selective prosecution argument. This ¶ is super important, bc it gets to how inapt exist precedents on whether related investigators can be source of animus. A president is different.

To determine whether another person’s animus can be imputed to a prosecutor, the Court
must analyze the specific facts of the case. The President’s course of conduct against Mr.
Comey makes the case for imputation clear—and the government does not attempt to explain
why the facts of this case do not support imputation. Instead, it cites cases (ECF No. 138 at 20-
22) in which courts rejected efforts to impute the animus of investigators, local prosecutors, or
other individuals with “no control over federal prosecutors” to the prosecutors who secured the indictments. United States v. Dickerson, 975 F.2d 1245, 1251 (7th Cir. 1992) (declining to
impute alleged animus of FBI agents and state police officers); see United States v. Spears, 159
F.3d 1081, 1087 (7th Cir. 1998) (declining to impute alleged animus of a state prosecutor and
investigators from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms); United States v. Gilbert, 266
F.3d 1180, 1187 (9th Cir. 2001) (declining to impute alleged animus of IRS investigators);
United States v. Cooper, 617 F. App’x 249, 251 (4th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (declining to impute
alleged animus of local law enforcement). Those cases are readily distinguishable from this one,
where the animus springs from the head of the Executive Branch who has supervisory authority
over all federal prosecutors and who exercised that power in this case.

November 10, 2025 at 11:17 PM

Ed Darrell

@edarrell.bsky.social

Economist Magazine says a great recession has begun.The 2025 Trump recession. Here’s Fortune’s assessment.

Roughly half of U.S. states are effectively in a recession and ‘hanging on by their fingertips,’ Moody’s chief economist
fortune.com/2025/10/09/a...

Roughly half of U.S. states are effectively in a recession and ‘hanging on by their fingertips,’ Moody’s chief economist says | Fortune

Moody’s chief economist, Mark Zandi, tells Fortune parts of America are already in recession, with 22 state economies contracting despite strong national GDP growth.

fortune.com

November 8, 2025 at 4:20 PM

Reposted by Ed Darrell

Heather Cherone

@heathercherone.bsky.social

NEW: @govpritzker.illinois.gov's office says 3 masked ICE agents stopped & questioned an IL Department of Transportation employee working in Park Ridge about his immigration status & whether he had traveled to New York and his awareness of NYC Mayor-elect @zohrankmamdani.bsky.social before leaving.

November 8, 2025 at 1:49 AM